Figures that matter

Privilege Speech of Councilor Peter Lavina

August 7, 2007

 

 

Madam President, colleagues …

 

Finally, the census on population is now underway. It has been delayed for over two years. The country conducts this population count every five years. The current one is supposed to have been conducted last May 2005 except for budgetary constraints.

 

Anyway, I would like to congratulate the Vice Mayor for being the first Davaoeño counted in this survey.

 

Why is a head count important?

 

There are many reasons. I would not belabor the importance of the vital statistics taken in this census. These data are crucial in our assessment, planning, programming and resource allocation.

 

Let me focus on two issues, Madam President, which have direct bearing on our city and people.

 

First, on one of the most cherished democratic principles of representation. Second, on Davao City being a distinct LGU apart from the province of Davao del Sur.

 

On the first point. Councilor Dayanghirang has revived calls for an additional congressional district for the city. This idea has been with us for almost 20 years now since the city was re-districted after the 1987 Constitution.

 

The Constitution clearly provided representation by districts of at least 250,000 population. Thus, at that time we were allocated three districts because our population was about 750,000.

 

But, now our population is over 1.3 million. Hence, we are entitled to at least five congressional districts, not just three or four.

 

Here is our population growth:

 

        May 6, 1970          392,473

        May 1, 1975          484,678

        May 1, 1980          610,375

        May 1, 1990          849,947

        May 1, 1995       1,006,840

        May 1, 2000       1,147,116

        May 1, 2005       1.3 M (est)

 

So, clearly while our population grew, our representation did not. The public policy then that “no taxation without representation” has sadly not been met accordingly.

 

Moreover, the Constitutional provision of “reapportionment of legislative districts” [(4) Section 5 Article IV on the Legislative Department] “within three years following the return of every census” has not been followed.

 

Redistricting should have been done nationwide in 1995, 2000 and 2005 following every census.

 

In the US, congressional districts grow accordingly based on the latest census. Unfortunately, in our case, we need to go through the rigors of congressional lobbying and horse-trading. Thus, since 1987, there had been very exceptional cases of the creation of new districts.

 

The new districts in Davao del Norte and Compostela Valley, for instance, were “rider provisions” in the creation of the new provinces. Same too with that of Makati when it was converted into a city from municipality.

 

Asking congress for the new districts is subject to partisanship thus the extreme difficulty to succeed. Cavite and Quezon City, for instance, has sought new districts as early as 1988. Even when Congressman Boy Nograles was majority leader of the House for three years, he was not able to lead the creation of the so-called 4^th district for the city.

 

Whereas, Madam President, after the return of the current census, the whole country’s legislative districts needed to be “reapportioned” as provided for by the constitution.

 

Hence, I call on our national government, particularly the National Statistics Office and Congress to do their jobs on re-districting the whole nation after this current census. Numbers should speak for themselves and not partisan interests.

 

If the NSO and Congress would do their jobs well, our city would at least have five districts in the 2010 elections. (Perhaps enough for many third-termers in this chamber (Joke only).

 

On the second point, Davao City should be listed distinct from Davao del Sur in our statistics. If is truly distressing that most statistics in our government lumped data from Davao City under the province of Davao del Sur.

 

Truth Madam President is that our city is not part of the province. Davao City is very much older than Davao del Sur. Our city was chartered in 1936, whereas, Davao del Sur was created upon the division of the old Davao province only in 1967. No less than the lolo of the Vice Mayor, then Gov. Vicente Duterte, presided over the creation of the provinces of Davao del Sur, del Norte and Oriental.

 

As a researcher, I have come to this difficulty of accessing statistics of the city because our national government agencies place our data together with that of Davao del Sur.

 

Thus, we not only get the wrong information, people get the wrong impression. I believe people in Davao del Sur are having the same predicament.

 

Let me cite, for instance, the list of the vote-rich provinces in the country – Davao del Sur is listed among the top with 1,232,053 voters by the COMELEC. Yet, if we look closer, it included voters from Davao City. (Source  http://www.comelec.gov.ph/2007elections/statistics/2007stats_r11.html)

 

Another example is the data on farms:

 

Region and Province	Number of Farms		Area of Farms
	2002	1991	2002	1991
Davao Region	299,966	267,224	758,335	795,893
Davao (including Compostela Valley)	119,814	110,836	292,397	307,755
Davao (excluding Compostela Valley)	57,597		125,124
Compostela Valley	62,217		167,273
Davao del Sur	127,520	110,494	301,989	313,276
Davao Oriental	52,632	45,894	163,949	174,862

Source: National Statistics Office, 1991 Census of Agriculture and Fisheries and 2002 Census of Agriculture

 

No data on Davao City? But what about the banana farm of our Majority Leader or the vast rice fields of Councilor Louie Villafuerte in the 3^rd district? Not counted!

 

Another example, data on number of building constructions:

 

Region XI – Davao Region (4^th quarter 2006) (Source - http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2006/bp06q403.htm)

 

Davao del Norte – 519

Davao del Sur – 660

Davao Oriental – 21

Compostela Valley - 144

 

 

Again, no data whatsoever on Davao City. But, most likely the bulk on the figure on Davao del Sur actually belongs to Davao City.

 

Madam President, colleagues, our government statistics are full of the same mistakes. We need to correct these.

 

Davao City deserves to be treated as it is – a distinct LGU apart from Davao del Sur.

 

At the proper time, I shall present to this body at least two Resolutions, one to call for the reapportionment or redistricting of the whole country after the 2007 census, and two, to correct the injustice to Davao City in our government statistics.

 

Thank you for your kind attention.

 

 Create your own educational wiki!Support CommunityPublic, not yet premium Privacy Policy RSS